Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumcilla4progress
(24,731 posts)McKibben, Thunberg, Monbiot - all signers of a letter saying the same thing, essentially.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/03/let-nature-heal-climate-and-biodiversity-crises-say-campaigners
The world faces two existential crises, developing with terrifying speed: climate breakdown and ecological breakdown. Neither is being addressed with the urgency needed to prevent our life-support systems from spiralling into collapse. We are writing to champion a thrilling but neglected approach to averting climate chaos while defending the living world: natural climate solutions. This means drawing carbon dioxide out of the air by protecting and restoring ecosystems.
By defending, restoring and re-establishing forests, peatlands, mangroves, salt marshes, natural seabeds and other crucial ecosystems, large amounts of carbon can be removed from the air and stored. At the same time, the protection and restoration of these ecosystems can help minimise a sixth great extinction, while enhancing local peoples resilience against climate disaster. Defending the living world and defending the climate are, in many cases, one and the same. This potential has so far been largely overlooked.
We call on governments to support natural climate solutions with an urgent programme of research, funding and political commitment. It is essential that they work with the guidance and free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people and other local communities.
This approach should not be used as a substitute for the rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation of industrial economies. A committed and well-funded programme to address all the causes of climate chaos, including natural climate solutions, could help us hold the heating of the planet below 1.5C. We ask that they are deployed with the urgency these crises demand.
applegrove
(118,651 posts)at140
(6,110 posts)I just moved into a house which has thick woods behind the house, and the air does feel oxygenated!
applegrove
(118,651 posts)at140
(6,110 posts)applegrove
(118,651 posts)applegrove
(118,651 posts)It is amazing how much land wants to be a forest. It starts out as grasses then bushes. Soon trees.
at140
(6,110 posts)I love the woods but don't want it right behind my patio LOL.
cilla4progress
(24,731 posts)Just devastating.
Some observations:
With the canopy gone, and with it, the shading, the forest floor can only heat up. Vicious cycle. Heat..fire...hotter. This is a river valley, and I can't imagine the trauma to the river, losing it's shading. The river turns brown and thick with every storm due to runoff - soil no longer held in place with plant roots.
Mother Nature will not be stopped! In only 4 years, nature is returning. The undergrowth has burgeoned native plants - shrubs, wildflowers, insects, birds. Baby trees.
This fire could have been stopped, but resources were elsewhere (protecting private property). I don't know, and not meant as a criticism, but I can't help but wonder if the USFS policy to "let it burn" (some of this forest is in wilderness), is more broadly applied? There is so much overgrowth and mis- or lack of management. It's a situation truly out of hand.
I walked the forest immediately after the fire. It was traumatized. In 4 years much has returned. Not in my lifetime, but hopefully in some future one, it will return to health, with appropriate management.
Going to try to figure out how to post pics here.
Entiat River Valley and Myrtle Lake, Washington state.
applegrove
(118,651 posts)There are pinecones in British Columbia that only germinate into trees after the heat of a forest fire. Maybe that is why they did not fight the fire? Just a guess.
cilla4progress
(24,731 posts)and how much is too far out of balance.
applegrove
(118,651 posts)applegrove
(118,651 posts)SWBTATTReg
(22,122 posts)that CO2 levels are getting higher, something that plants want...I also always wondered like in North Africa, where there are some pretty big deserts, that planting wide strips of trees would help push the desert back (in deserts everywhere for that matter) and contribute to less CO2 emissions...
NickB79
(19,236 posts)Because it REALLY looks like they're suggesting we plant trees on previously unforested areas, like the US Great Plains, and the Russian saiga.
If so, that's the kind of thing that wipes out ecosystems.
applegrove
(118,651 posts)northeast U.S. is naturally becoming more forrested as farms leave. So maybe it will be like that?
Trees where trees belong; prairie offers different kind of carbon sequestration. Deep roots.
kat3rinamarquez
(47 posts)This should be done. So that the next generation after ours can still witness the beauty of Mother Earth.